Freshman Joshua Hock argues that NROTC was justified in following the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy and dismissing Todd Belok from its program.
“If Belok was as devoted to serving in the Navy as he claims, he should have been a bit more prepared to conceal the one thing about him that could have, and ultimately did, make his dream impossible. The “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy was his first order; nobody asked, but he certainly told. “
Commentary from the opinions editors, op-ed columnists and The Hatchet's Editorial Board
Director of the GW Institute for Nanotechnology Michael Keidar spent the last three years developing a cancer cell-killing medical device that he said could revolutionize the disease’s treatment worldwide.
The problem with growing up is that there is always someone telling us we are not old enough. And yet, you would think that as young adults, we would finally be over it.
What’s not to love about graduation season? It is filled with senior send-offs, family get-togethers and free food.
GWids are the equivalent of students’ social security numbers on campus.
Transfer students do not enroll at GW for the Mount Vernon Campus experience. They come here to take advantage of city life in Foggy Bottom.
As camera flashes flickered over a sea of tassels, two Columbian College of Arts and Science professors urged graduates to cast their fears aside and forge fresh paths to success.
I never understood why people refer to cities as if they were human until I left Sevilla, Spain. My feelings toward leaving my newfound home are so complex, it's as if I am leaving the love of my life.
Vol. 109
An Independent Student Newspaper
Serving The George Washington University Community Since 1904
You know what else congress supposed? That white men would not be able to serve with black men. That would prevent them to bond with each other.
I’m sure some there are some people that go into the military from very small towns that haven’t interacted with black people either. The military doesn’t take that as an excuse. In basic training recruits that felt uncomfortable with black people were retrained.
Would allowing openly gay men and women to serve in the military shake up the military, yes but so did the integration of the military.
When we need our men and women who love their country to serve more than ever, when we need people who speak Arabic now more than every, does it really make sense to be dismissing people with those skills because they like people of the same sex?
I don’t think so.
You sir, are a cad. Long ago the Republican party was the party of individual sovereignty, small government, and rights for all. It was a Republican who released the slaves from the bonds of their servitude, and held the nation together during a long and bloody civil war over that decision.
Your desire to become a member of the catholic clergy is light years different than Belok’s desire to become an officer in the U.S. Navy. Whereas the Catholic Church has thousands of years of religious text decrying homosexuality, the US Navy has no such tenets other than DADT. All military decisions on homosexuality are based on old literature from such organizations as the American Psychiatric Association; this literature has been debunked and retracted by the APA long since. A long time ago the armed forces stated that it would be “impossible” to integrate black and white units, and that such integration would be detrimental to unit health. Integration happened, and while there was a short period of adjustment, black and white soldiers and sailors serve side by side with little to no friction.
Quite frankly, it is your outdated ideology and insistence on clinging to old and disproved ideas that 1) continues the cycle of hatred against homosexuals and 2) Caused your party to lose this past election.
Anyone who refers to “homosexuality” as a “nuisance” does not get to use his own gayness to justify the assertion that others must remain closeted.
While I agree that Belok certainly knew the policy when he signed up, and his unit had no choice but to dismiss him, Hock’s argument that gay members of the armed forces would “disrupt unit cohesion” is an unfounded party-line.
It’s also worth mentioning that, while US troops may not want to admit it, they’ve already been serving alongside openly-gay servicemembers in the War on Terror, as the UK, Canada, and Australia allow gays and lesbians (and transgenders, in Canada) to serve openly.
Colby
If you read my column thoroughly, you would realize that I point out that I think homosexuals CAN serve in the military. I feel that homosexuals who make it known that they are homosexual as Todd Belok did, they shouldn’t be allowed in.
He wasn’t dismissed because he “liked peopled of the same sex” but because he engaged in sexual acts with another male in front of people.
Furthermore, less than 2% of the country is gay. There inability to serve is hardly causing service numbers to dwindle.
Rather pathetic, misguided article all-around.
The Hatchet needs to stop allowing freshmen to write opinion pieces, especially conservative ones. They have no concept of a succinct argument and so they come off as bigoted not only because the nature of their argument is discriminatory but also because their claims are offensive due to their ridiculous logic. Between this and the poorly-written/terribly-argued article on gay marriage, conservatives need to step their game up.
This guy is one the biggest self-hating gays I have ever come across and he sounds like he’s got more than an identity crisis.
“If Belok was as devoted to serving in the Navy as he claims, he should have been a bit more prepared to conceal the one thing about him that could have, and ultimately did, make his dream impossible. The “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy was his first order. Nobody asked, but he certainly told.”
I didn’t realize the “first order” of the Navy is to not be gay and that “devotion to serving in the Navy” comes from one’s ability to suppress their sexual feelings. And he didn’t “tell” in the way you describe- he was at a non-ROTC party and was seen kissing another dude.
” I myself have learned how much of a nuisance homosexuality can be. At a young age, I was forced to choose between acknowledging very real homosexual feelings and fulfilling my aspiration to enter the Catholic clergy. Obviously I, like Belok, chose the former, but I, unlike Belok, did not expect the rules to change just because I had.”
You “chose” the former because it was natural to you- not because there was an actual decision that needed to be made! Two issues 1. pragmatic- 10,000 soldiers have been dismissed when its becoming increasingly difficult to recruit and 2. ethical- if its a natural feeling (you acknowledge this yourself) that one cannot hide.
The rest of the article about “unit cohesion” is factually inaccurate and its logic is definitely below high-school level.
“because it was Belok’s fellow midshipmen that reported his actions, I believe they were correct.”
“One of the students who reported Belok explained his actions, saying ‘it was just an uncomfortable situation’ for the other members of the NROTC”
See he closes the quote before “for the other members of the NROTC” because he adds that judgment. The person hes referring to said it “uncomfortable” for him because he is not against gay people but he had to report it, and regretted it because the kid was in fact kicked out. This is straight up misrepresentation. And no where is there a clear reason why military members cannot bond with gay people? I thought at least he would point to specific things that they were asked to do but we can’t even get that. Many other major militaries allow it- including one of our biggest allies in Israel
Anyways, the larger issue is that freshmen writers need to stop.
I think Andrew definitely said it best.
Your own ignorance and internalized homophobia negated what could have been at least an interesting perspective on the situation.
You might want to open your eyes to the fact that not only are your generalizations faulty on the whole, but especially at GW. And since you’re a history major, perhaps you should take HIST 130 to get a little perspective on the “nuisance” of homosexuality.
Wow – You are a brave soul for writing this article. I’m sure you know that you will be attacked relentlessly. Do not take it to heart and I for one, agree with you.
And to the student who wrote this:
“Anyone who refers to “homosexuality” as a “nuisance” does not get to use his own gayness to justify the assertion that others must remain closeted.”
Wow – so you do you do consultations on who may and may not make certain arguments? I may need to sign up in case I’m stepping over my bounds.
We at GWU only tolerate those whom we agree with…and we foist the term of “intolerant” on anyone we disagree with instead of tolerating their opposing views. Lovely isn’t it?
I’ll make my comment short and sweet. Admitting your own homosexuality does not exclude you from being homophobic.
Your article is not objective due to your “Republican” and “homosexual” identity. Rather, it is probably one of the most biased and homophobic pieces I have ever had the displeasure of reading.
I suggest you get to know yourself a little better and ask exactly why seeing two men kiss bothers you so profoundly.
This whole argument as it stands is irrelevant. Wether or not you agree with DADT, it is the current rule of law regarding the armed forces. Beyond that, it logically stands that it is the governing law of junior versions of the armed forces such as ROTC and all the other similar acronyms. If you wish to complain about this the focus must be on the national entity, not the college level.
With this understanding in mind, I am forced to agree with Hock that the NROTC made the decision they needed to make in this situation. Thankfully, I do not fully agree with this author due to his beyond inflammatory comments mainly focusing upon the student’s need to hide his lifestyle. Throughout the comments on this article I notice many mentions to the armed forces past treatment of African Americans. One thing I am surprised no one has mentioned is the segregated units that originally formed in the army. With such units African Americans were able to prove that they were just as effective on the front lines as anyone else. I would think that the best way to start having progress on the DADT front would be to have such units with homosexuals. While this is clearly discriminating against them by separating them out from the average GI Joe it would give them the opportunity to serve their country like the student this article I written about wished.
Since when does being gay and Republican make you qualified to make an argument that is stupid and dumb?
This kid ruined his dream and his reputation. It’s futile to argue whether DADT is relevant anymore or not, seeing as it’s not going to get him into the navy and his name will forever be associated with the controversy by doing a simple internet search, as future employers will inevitably do. All you liberals, especially homosexuals, are spoiled with tolerance at GW. In the real world, you do what you have to do get what you want, fair or not fair. US policy doesn’t favor the gays. It sucks but it’s true. Adjust your life accordingly (and this doesn’t, by any stretch of the imagination, mean change your orientation) or live in miserable discontent. If the navy was really that important to him than he really should have been smarter about keeping his orientation a secret. It’s his own fault. Life isn’t fair. The law is the law. Get over it.
You are a coward. You think that Todd did the wrong thing by standing up for equal rights and wanting to serve his nation. Instead of sitting back and accepting an unjust law, he is doing something about it. What are you doing? Complaining about someone taking action. That is disgraceful. Don’t try to use another’s struggle to get yourself publicity and talk about your problems when you don’t even want to do anything about them.
Disgusting article, kid needs to see a psychiatrist.
“I don’t give a damn who the man is. He can be a n***** or a Jew, but if he has the stuff and does his duty, he can have anything I’ve got. By God! I love him.”
Patton ain’t shit compared to Joshua Hock. What’s that dead motherfucker know anyways- he’s six feet deep!
Freshman editorials like this really infuriated me when I was at GW and definitely still do today. Joshua, you’re only 18 or 19 I’m assuming, so I’ll cut you some slack on your self-hating. Being gay, I remember not feeling too good about myself at that age either. Fortunately, you’re in a great environment to learn more about life and what will inevitably make you happy. Just one piece of advice: don’t hate on two guys (or girls) kissing in public too much…gay people are just like everybody else and at times like to express their affection publicly. You’re young, but think about how unhappy and repressed you’ll feel by the time you’re forty and you’re still sneaking around, making sure nobody sees you get in a quick kiss. It’s a kiss, not the end of the world.
The main argument I want to make is from the first sentence of your editorial: “Conservative GW students seem to have been rather quiet about the recent dismissal of gay freshman Todd Belok from the school’s NROTC program. I suspect that it is because they are afraid of the accusations of bigotry that would inevitably follow…”
Are you kidding me? If anything, conservatives at GW are one of the most vociferous groups on campus and are never afraid to voice opposition…at least they were when I was there. I made many great friends at GW arguing policy back and forth in a collegial environment. The reason you haven’t heard much from conservatives about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is because they don’t agree with you. Check the polling on the issue Joshua…its not as controversial as you think. Somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of the country supports open service and I would argue that number is probably higher in our age group. It’s a non-issue, a dinosaur that should be repealed. I suggest you actually do the research on the history of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and actually look at the studies that show open service is not a detriment to “unit cohesion”. Don’t parrot the first thing you come across that will support your argument. Don’t worry, you’ll learn that in the next few years before graduating.
Jay,
I want to thank you–a college graduate–for taking the time to respond to me–an “infuriating” freshman–with three lengthy paragraphs submitted very late in the evening (or morning; I realize the editors can take a bit of time to post these things).
Though, I imagine that, with the economic conditions being as they are, you–a college graduate–might not be especially busy at the moment.
Your cite a poll that claims a strong majority of Americans favor letting gays in the military. Fine, but you ignore the report that those presently serving in the armed forces support the ban on gays in the military by a similarly wide margin, at least according to a 2008 poll. (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1707545,00.html)
I think that their opinion matters considerably more than civilians in this case.
Furthermore, you should object to my argument because it was written by a freshman. If anything, it would be best to accuse me of being an oppurtunist. Though, I’m no more oppurtunistic, I suppose, than GW’s Allied-in-Pride Chapter, which organized a “march on the White House” in response to Belok’s dismissal; I merely wrote a 16 inch column for a student publicaiton. (Also, technically, I’m a sophmore.)
Finally, and this can be taken as a response to more than just you, I am NOT a self-hating homosexual. Instead, I hate those who embrace and perpetuate stereotypes about homosexuals that make it difficult to live as one.
I am not the one in identity crisis–I came to terms with my preference well before now. In fact, the only identity crisis that I can see exists within those who cling to a gay identity because they have nothing else with which to define themselves.
…And don’t worry, I’m sure that you’ll find something more productive with your time than to patronize me “the next few years” after having graduated.
You must remember this
A kiss is just a kiss, a sigh is just a sigh.
The fundamental things apply
As time goes by.
It’s still the same old story
A fight for love and glory
A case of do or die.
The world will always welcome lovers
As time goes by.
Oh yes, the world will always welcome lovers
As time goes by.
Casablanca, 1942
“Are my eyes really brown?”
Casablanca, 1942
Kissing’s not a sexual act. Or are you saying every time your mom kisses you goodnight, you’re having sex with your mom? Come on.
Anyway…why is it OK for guys to kiss girls in front of their fellow militarymen? If it’s to be “no sexual acts at all” then let’s ban open heterosexuality too!
Seriously, why is it bad for a gay guy to say “I’m dating this guy” but OK for a straight couple to say “we’re trying for a baby”? In the first instance, there’s no mention of sex, not even an implication of it. For all you know, they hold hands and cuddle up in front of the TV. In the second case, they are very obviously saying “we’re sleeping together.”
First of all, I’d like to thank Mr. Josh Hock for writing this article to show the typical ignorant arguments used by people who support DADT.
1. ” Fine, but you ignore the report that those presently serving in the armed forces support the ban on gays in the military by a similarly wide margin, at least according to a 2008 poll. ”
I don’t care what you source, NUMEROUS poles and surveys have shown that the US military is ready for repeal of DADT.
2. ” At a young age, I was forced to choose between acknowledging very real homosexual feelings and fulfilling my aspiration to enter the Catholic clergy”
I’m sorry, but I do not empathize at all with Mr. Hock’s recollection of a hard time in his youth. The Catholic Church condemns homosexuality officially and those who espouse Church teachings thus must agree with these teachings. On the contrary the US military does not teach homophobia. Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is a congressional law, not a military law. The military is just required to uphold this. For example, Belok recalls how even after he was disenrolled from the ROTC he knew that the same officers who kicked him out felt bad for what they had to do and only did it because DADT is a federal law. Even Dave Perry stated how he felt no homophobia towards Belok but only did it because he thought that that was keeping with the Navy values.
3. “This does not suggest that those midshipmen are hateful, but rather that they, along with what is probably a very large majority of people, are a little perturbed when they witness homosexual acts”
A vague, blanket generalization (but then again, how is that different from the rest of Mr. Hock’s article?) that states ROTC mids were “perturbed” by Beloks actions. Once again, both Perry and Trimis, the people who turned Belok in stated that they did it not because they felt any hate or awkwardness in relation to Belok’s action but because DADT is a federal law.
4. “I differ, though, from Todd Belok in that I am not usually in the habit of announcing or displaying my sexual preference” I know from personal experience that Belok is neither a “queen” nor flamboyantly overt about his sexuality. Belok kissed his steady boyfriend at a party. If that in your opinion qualifies someone as “in the habit of announcing or displaying [his] sexual preference” then that makes you a very bigoted individual. I don’t care if you’re gay.
5. “What Belok has done is a demonstration of insubordination and that, I think, is something hardly compatible with military life.” If kissing someone while not even in uniform constitutes insubordination, well, then I’m afraid that you have no idea what insubordination in the military actually is. I have a question Josh Hock….did you know that it is illegal in the UCMJ (code of law governing members of the US military) to engage in any non-vaginal intercourse (i.e. oral or anal sex)? I am willing to bet that 90% of servicemembers have given or received oral sex in their lives before. But, in your opinion this should also constitute insubordination and qualify at least 90% of the military for involuntary separation? I think I’ll leave that up to you.
6. And last but not least, ” I am NOT a self-hating homosexual. Instead, I hate those who embrace and perpetuate stereotypes about homosexuals that make it difficult to live as one.” The first part of that sentence is still up for debate, and as to the second part; I would say that you definitely fulfill the stereotype of a half-closeted self hating homosexual.
Next time think before you put down Belok and over 12,500 other servicemembers who have been kicked out because of this archaic law.
Mr. Belok,
As a Republican voter and a Catholic, I can understand your argument. However, I do not agree with you at all.
While homosexuality may be a “nuisance” to some, the fact is that it exists. At a time like this, when we need every soldier we can get, we shouldn’t be turning down hard-working men and women who just happen to have a different sexual orientation. After all, procreation isn’t one of the requirements of military servicemen and women.
I applaud you for wanting to join the Catholic clergy and sincerely wish you the best of luck. Don’t forget, however, that Jesus teaches of unconditional love.
Sincerely,
A freshman conservative.
PS: The reason why “Conservative GW students seem to have been rather quiet about the recent dismissal of gay freshman Todd Belok from the school’s NROTC program?” If you looked into the matter, you would find that most GW conservatives are intelligent young men and women who recognize that gay persons are just as capable of making contributions to society as any other person. We recognize that our desire for limited government and low taxes are much more important issues than sexual orientation. The CRs actually just hosted a joint meeting with the DC Log Cabin Republicans. That sounds like something that could be a beneficial activity for you.
Dear Freshman Conservative,
At a time like this, we in fact do not need every soldier we can get. The economic crisis will almost surely cause an increase in recruitments. With less than 2% of the country identifying as homosexual (and that is a figure that has remained steady for 70 years), Don’t Ask Don’t Tell hardly impacts service numbers.
Further, I reiterate once again my position, as a matter of principle, homosexuals probably should be let into the armed services. My attack was on those homosexuals who make that possibility difficult by choosing to contribute to cultural erosion.
I do not know what faction of our party you allign with, but I doubt it is mind. Conservative principles, I believe, extend beyond government and into culture.
I was aware that the Log Cabins were speaking at GW. I didn’t attend because I don’t agree with some their goals.
Best,
A real freshman conservative
“With less than 2% of the country identifying as homosexual (and that is a figure that has remained steady for 70 years), Don’t Ask Don’t Tell hardly impacts service numbers.”
Ok so the military didn’t need the 12,500 servicemembers kicked out because of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell over the last 15 years? I also assume that you believe that the over 300 Arab linguists discharged for being gay also weren’t necessary to the military.
“My attack was on those homosexuals who make that possibility difficult by choosing to contribute to cultural erosion.” And what exactly do you mean by that? Are you accusing Todd of contributing to the cultural erosion? Also, I found it curious how you neatly avoided commenting on my earlier post.
At this point what is the purpose of continuing to snipe at each other through these comments all they do is make both sides look bad. If this is the newest wave of politics in america, just e-yelling back and forth, well I guess that is a change I just cannot believe in.
Aside from the poorly written, illogical and misinformed nature of this article, you, Joshua, should be absolutely ashamed of yourself. Even if you are a homosexual, as you say, (and I have to admit, it’s rare that we ever call ourselves that…) you are nonetheless filled with an alarming amount of self-hatred and homophobia.
I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but the GLBT community has been engaged for many, many years now in an uphill civil rights battle. Your views, and more so your public admission of them, hurt our cause, they harm your GLBT brethren. And, for the record, there’s a lot more out there than you think. The standard figure that is assumed is that 10% of the population is gay, while many people estimate that the figure is likely twice that. I don’t know where you pulled that 2% figure from.
I genuinely feel sad for you that seeing two men kissing shocks you. And if you plan on spending the next three years on GW’s campus, you had better get over that. Your article seems to imply that people who are uncomfortable being around gay people are justified in their discomfort. They are not. It is wrong, it is bigotry, it is hatred, and it costs young gay men and lesbian women their lives.
Todd Belok does deserve to be commended. He was not performing “sexual acts” in public, as you claim. He was being himself, and doing what every other person at GW is entitled to do at a frat party or anywhere else. The three core values of the Navy are honor, courage, and commitment. MIDN Belok seems to have demonstrated more of all three in his semester as a midshipman than most of his shipmates do in their four years in the unit.
I’m sorry that who you are is such a “nuisance” to you. (As an aside, the fact that you are gay in no way prohibits you from joining the priesthood. I know many, many priests who are gay and, to the best of my knowledge, celibate. The priesthood requires celibacy, not heterosexuality.) But as a member of the GLBT community, I must emphasize how much articles like yours take our cause for civil rights one step backward.
To Adam:
The debate concerning homosexuality in the priesthood remains, as of yet, unsolved in the Church.
A simple search on Wikipedia shows that your concept of Roman Catholic Theology is wrong. Only homosexuals whose feelings constitute a “trial” (that is, of time) are received into the clergy; if you do not trust Wikipedia, here is a link to the page on the Vatican website with the policy: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html.
Given that, I find it hard to believe you know “many, many” gay priests; indeed, given your poor knowledge of Cannon Law, I find it hard to believe you know many, many priets at all.
To Eugene Froman:
You should be aware that I did not respond to several other posts in addition to yours. This is merely a question of time. You hardly said anything in either of your posts that was not echoed by the others to which I did respond.
The Arab Linguists are not nearly enough justification for disturbing the heterosexual population of the armed services.
Moreover, I reiterate my position for the last time: homosexuals should be allowed to serve in the armed forces. It is only if they create an enivronment of discomfort that they foreight their right to do so.
To all others leaving comments:
I should mention that I am no longer a Catholic (for many reasons) and have happily discovered a different Faith that is more compatible with my lifestyle and beliefs.
Finally, enough has been said. I will not be checking this page again; this is my last response.
as a close member of Todd’s family, I can tell you that you are quite correct… this was not an act of bravery but a show of complete disrespect and insubordination- characteristics very familiar to this individual- i applaud your commentary
maaaaah